You give the impression that you're trying to convince others (?) that your most haughty, instantaneous impulses are unassailable.

Almost nobody's are.

In vino veritas applies to Mel Gibson quite well I think.

Howard Stern has great commentary about Mel Gibson, and I agree with his stance. I tell people I love them when drunk, I don't hope they get "raped by a pack of niggers."

Mel had a history of homophobic, anti-Semitic, woman hating vitriol for decades. It wasn't until he was dumb enough to stop letting his handlers cover for him (same as Tom Cruise) that all of this came out.

If you want to see a successful actor who is a racist just look at Mark Walburg. He literally beat the shit out of an Asian guy and disabled him. But he's got good PR.

(And Amy is right not all of us use that language, my insults are more refined, brimming with wit thank you very much)

"…a bigot and a hater."

These people claim to be grown up.

They want you to worry about "haters."

Now, the ADL has almost certainly taken morally correct positions on things over the years. But do they actually do anything good for anybody?

It reminds me of the Beatles' old record company, called Apple. They'd promised to stay out of the computer company's way, so long as Cupertino stayed out of the music business... But soon enough, microcomputers were powerful enough to do wonderful things for people's music enjoyment, and the lawyers represent McCartney and the Lennon estate started suing them.

Steve Jobs' lawyers' first defensive argument to the judge was literally this long, cutting to the heart of the matter: "Does Apple Records even do anything nowadays besides sue people?"

Was there any musical identity left in the brand to "Apple" defend?

Does ADL do anything besides children's taunts?

Is it productive to be the enemy of "hatred," an emotion?

(You can say "yes" if you want, but the rest of us will expect to see results when you say you're improving the world.)

> In vino veritas

No... If it were truth serum, it would be useful instead of just delightful.

Yeah, Gary Oldman was intentionally trying to stir up some controversy for himself and he achieved it. The journalist would have been smart to recognize this and edit that out of the story. When he said, "You have to edit and cut half of what I've said, because it's going to make me sound like a bigot," he was actually daring the writer to keep his comments intact.

It's not a truth serum to be administered but rather a smoke of boldness to be inhaled.

Plus I've lived with alcoholics enough to know they're telling you how they really feel.

Favorite passage from the Weiner piece:

Not everybody is that generous: when Gibson himself needed a break that came when Warner Bros hired him for a showy role in The Hangover Part II, he was abruptly dropped when cast complained to director Todd Phillips. Mind you, these same actors happily worked with Tyson despite his felony conviction for rape.

Hollywood is a realm of moral lunacy.

I'm Jewish and I've never heard anyone in my extended family (nor any Jewish colleagues for that matter) berate Germans the way Gary seems to think Jews do when non-Jews aren't around. Never, ever. Not even when contemplating the Holocaust would it even remotely occur to me to talk about Germans like that, it would be stupid. I'm sure it must happen that some Jews talk like that sometimes, but most Jewish people are really just not like that, at least all the ones I know.

> Steve Jobs' lawyers' first defensive argument to the judge was literally this long, cutting to the heart of the matter: "Does Apple Records even do anything nowadays besides sue people?"

Ironic that suing others for violating their patents (like 'slide to unlock') is now a core part of the Apple business model. (Actually it's an interesting story how Jobs regained control over Apple when it was almost dead, and got Microsoft to invest millions in Apple - long story short, it also involved patent threats.)

Ppen's got it right. I never met anyone who drank too much and then lied to me about how they really felt about things.

And I've said it before and I'll keep saying it, because it's TRUE: "political correctness" is neither; it's bullshit. It's made up horseshit.

To wit: "Political correctness (adjectivally, politically correct; both forms commonly abbreviated to PC) is a term that refers to enforced language, ideas, or policies that address perceived discrimination against political, social or economical groups ("protected classes"). These groups most prominently include those defined by gender, race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, age and disability.

Historically, the term was a colloquialism used in the early-to-mid 20th century by Communists and Socialists in political debates, referring pejoratively to the Communist "party line", which provided for "correct" positions on many matters of politics. The term was adopted in the later 20th century by the New Left, applied with a certain humour to condemn sexist or racist conduct as "not politically correct". By the early 1990s, the term was adopted by US conservatives as a pejorative term for all manner of attempts to promote multiculturalism and identity politics, particularly, attempts to introduce new terms that sought to leave behind discriminatory baggage ostensibly attached to older ones, and conversely, to try to make older ones taboo. This phenomenon was driven by a combination of the linguistic turn in academia and the rise of identity politics both inside and outside it. These led to attempts to change social reality by changing language, with attempts at making language more culturally inclusive and gender-neutral. These attempts (associated with the political left) led to a backlash from the right, partly against the attempts to change language, and partly against the underlying identity politics itself."

Here ya go: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctness

> I never met anyone who drank too
> much and then lied to me about
> how they really felt about things.

Man, I sure have. "Yeah, I'm good to drive" can be the LEAST of the attempted delusions...

ya know, there may be just a wee bit of difference between the way a Brit, an Oz, or a Korean, or a I dunno, Kazak might view the world from an "American" [what, we own both continents?]...
ever have a drunk Englishman yell a stream of obscenities and vulgarities at you, while telling you what an excellent mate you were for not leaving him in the street in his own puke?

What a buncha freakin' prudes!

Yeah, it's easy to be offended if you are from this strange melange country called the US, where wrestling with what ought to be vs. what actually is. For some people, it's a full contact sport.

So... did Mel rape a little girl? That's funny, THOSE GUYS have been apologized for in obscene ways for decades.

but they haven't SAID the WRONG thing.

I agree with Oldman pretty much, though I think he shoulda told eveyone to piss-off instead of the BS apology. I think he'd be first to agree with his own hypocrisy on that, though...

He'd prolly say, "just business, you, know?"

This is all well within the realm of "thoughtcrime" at this point... and the apologies are designed to placate, not repudiate.

There is quite a difference between: "man, those guidos steal all the hot girls..." and "see that wop over there? Ima go bust him up." and the follow through on the attack.

But then, I'm also getting old enough not to care much, other than everybody minds their own f**kin business.

What's funny about Gary Oldman and Mel Gibson's rantings is the almost bitter undertones ... they sound like they feel like Jews cheated them out of a successful life.

Even as a Jew I sort of almost 'get it' when poor people feel bitter about their lack of success and so want to blame Jews, but these are some of society's most successful people.

Miss Manners has pointed out, more than once, that there are TWO types of political correctness - one good, one bad, and it's childish for either side not to acknowledge that. Just as there's good conformity and bad (e.g., mindless) conformity.

I prefer to use the term "common decency" referring to good PCness, and "racism" or "sexism" when I'm referring to such. As political comedian Barry Crimmins said in the early 1990s - not verbatim - "I think the term PC is pretty cynical and it undermines the progress we've made, the lines we've drawn....I don't hold with the idea of 'oh, why don't you loosen up and be a racist like me.' "

BTW, here's a 2011 thread on that:

http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/04/24/dr_helens_pjtv.html

Jews run Hollywood, and thank God (or Gaia or whatever) for that because there's no f'n way I'm watching any of that Bollywood crap.

Gibson's rabid Church of the Leather Nuns Catholicism is what's wrong with the guy. If it were up to Mel the Church would go back a few centuries and stay there, with no grace allotted for apostates, infidels, Jews, non-believers, queers, or darkies.

As for Oldman, he's right, we're all too PC and two-faced about this, but he's confusing social lubricant (not acting like a hateful jackass about people different from yourself) with all-caps "HONESTY".

Yeah, what Gog said.

An' Uncle Cridmo, I meant someone telling me how they really feel about something, not whether they're okay to drive, that's different. Someone telling me "Flynnie, I really love ya" when they're 3 sheets to the wind and then slurring, "sokay, I kin drive" are two different things, and when I hear the second, I'll take away the keys and let them call me a "fuckininterferinbitch" and shove them onto the couch, where they pass out, and wake up in the morning, hung over but saying, "man, thanks, Flynnie, I was shitfaced", and I'll say "yeah I know and I still love ya."

Hollywood is a realm of moral lunacy.

They still think highly of Roman Polanski. In fact, they probably think more highly of him now than when he fled the US for France nearly 40 years ago. And they now know without a doubt what, precisely, he did.

The absolute moronism shown by extreme PC, lenona, is when newspapers refuse to print a suspect's racial identity because it might offend someone.

Thank the gods they can still identify his gender!

I just keep thinking about that old adage - you know the one, "sticks and stones... " Seriously, that applies in a lot of the interactions we have. And honestly, I feel like my 5 year old will have a better handle on "ignoring it" than most adults. No one really has the power to change anyone else's mind, just do better yourself.

So, I expect that Roman Polanski will finally be forced to actually appear in court, yes? No? I suppose Arnold and Whoopi will be apologizing on his behalf then. Oh wait... maybe Martin Scorsese or Woody Allen will make a movie about this terrible miscarriage of justice!? Wouldn't that be swell!

I wonder how many other extra's Brian Singer's been accused of sexually abusing during the last X-Men movie? Doesn't matter because... X-MEN! The movies are so good we need MOAR!

Ben Affleck, Leonardo DiCaprio, Tobey Maguire and Matt Damon were all apparently part of an underground illegal gambling operation in CA in 2011 but funnily enough, all anyone can talk about is how Leo just can't get an Oscar.

Tim Allen is arrested for drug trafficking and multiple DUI's but he's Tim "The Tool man" Taylor. *man groan* MORE POWER! Wait, You can't arrest me! I'm BUZZ LIGHTYEAR!

Hugh Grant is found with a hooker, but he said he was soooorryyy. Good boy! You get an even better film career as a reward!

Danny Trejo served 11 years prison for Drug, murder and robbery. When he got out, they made him an actor playing drug dealers and murderers on screen. Celebrate! (Although, to his credit, he seems to genuinely have cleaned up his act)

Ozzy and Sharyn Osborne get a reality show where his minor children are caught, on camera, drinking alcohol. Lovely. In return, Sharyn gets her own talk show where she dispenses parenting advice to the masses!

Robert Downey, Jr. (who also seems to have turned his act around) after a history of drug and alcohol abuse was given his second (or was it his fifth by then?) chance by Mel Gibson ironically enough. They sure are celebrating the Iron Man now. Mel... not so much.

Rob Lowe picks up two chicks (one of the them underage) at a Democratic campaign convention in 1988, makes a sex-tape (he apparently made it THE thing to do) and after being charged with rape by the girl’s mother, settled out of court and only served community service. But he's such a heart throb and so good on West Wing! Oh NOOOOOES!

What do all these A-listers have in common?
They are all Democrats (or were registered Democrats at the time of their indiscretions) and they all said the right things and made nice with the right people. Oh, and they didn't insult the Jews. (Soldiers and Christians are fare game though, cuz, you know... free speech I guess) It doesn't matter that they actually COMMITTED A CRIME because they are part of the protected class of the Hollywood elite and the law doesn't apply to them.

This is why Oldman was forced to apologize. No matter how brilliant he is as an actor or the fact that he hasn't broken any laws (or the fact that he's actually right)... He said the wrong things. He didn't follow the script. His choices were to apologize to the Hollywood elite and the rest of the sheeple, or never work again. I do not have the slightest doubt in my mind that they would have taken away his livelihood over this. I can't say I blame the guy...

"What do all these A-listers have in common?
They are all Democrats "

They're conspiring against you, ya know.

Probably under your floor in the crawl space this very moment, planting listening devices, burning American flags, and consorting with the worst sort of abortionists.

In vino veritas....

I never met anyone who drank too much and then lied to me about how they really felt about things.

So, that drunk guy in the bar who says he's driving a Honda because his Ferrari is in the shop isn't lying?

Oh nuts. I gotta find the shop I left my Ferrari in.

In vino veritas....

I never met anyone who drank too much and then lied to me about how they really felt about things.

Feelings are complicated, multi-faceted things. Alcohol reduces feelings to single-faceted things.

My professor unfairly gives me a bad grade, so now drunk me hates all professors. Sober me recognizes gradients, perspectives, and even considers whether the professor could have a point.

My girlfriend breaks up with me, so now drunk me hates all women. Sober me misses my girlfriend and stalks her on Facebook - while thinking about getting a new girlfriend.

Gog...
It's no secret that Liberals run Hollywood.. though the PC-loving crowd would have you believe every lie they tell us (and we tell ourselves) to justify the blantant hypocracy and criminal activity because of feeeeelliiinggs.
Looks what's happened to every outspoken Conservative TV personality or actor in that town... You can hardly find one these days.
They also run the NSA and IRS.
That's not paranoia or a conspiracy theory. It's fact.

Just like it's no secret the Republicans run the Catholic Churches and most of the big businesses that everyone rails against. However, no one would accuse me of being ignorant or throwing around conspiracy theories if I start Republican bashing. It's just accepted. As soon as something even so much as insinuates that Liberals are just as hypocritical and criminal as Republicans are accused of being though, suddenly I'm just paranoid... interesting.

You're entitled to your opinion, until it disagrees with mine...

> There's delusion and there's a lack
> of perception and there's a difference.

There's grievance and there's butthurt, and that's a difference, too.

Again, I think some (ahem) really want to be right about this. No, I mean they really, REALLY want to be right. It's very important to them to convey their certitude. About Gibson. And now, about Olman.

But did either of them really hurt people? In a world of genuine monsters, these two are guys who, worst case, said things that were nasty.

Right?

Gog - I'm going to try really hard to say "social lubricant" within the next 2 days. love that.

The opposite of Political-Correctness is not Political-Incorrectness - it's intellectual honesty - there's a big difference.

The way PC'ness stifles public dialog creates an environment where discourse is pushed to two extremes - overly-sanitized on one hand, and filth 'for the sake of it' on the other (a reaction to the over-sanitization). The middle ground disappears.

PC'ness is harmful, but spewing racist and anti-Semitic garbage does not make you some sort of crusader against PC'ness.

"it's no secret the Republicans run the Catholic Churches "

Let's just let that float there in the punch bowl for awhile.

My point in my whole post was this:

I think the hypocrisy Oldman was trying to point out (in his not so eloquent way) was that Hollywood vilified Gibson (who I will add has always been very open about his Catholicism) and Baldwin because they said some things that hurt some people’s feelings but protected those who actually HARMED PEOPLE.

No one condones what they said in thier drunken stupors. But, no one can deny the utter hypocrisy and shameless favoritism shown to the actual criminals in Hollywood compared to these guys. The most famous one... Polanksi. Hollywood fucking rallied around a guy who DRUGGED AND RAPED A 13 YEAR OLD GIRL AND THEN FLED THE COUNTRY! Director Bryan Singer is charged with raping 15 Year-Old Boy" but somehow, X-Men movies keep getting the green light and there is complete silence from the beautiful people.

The other part that truly baffles me is that he can say "Fuck the Pope" and no one bats and eye. But he makes a comment that seems as if he's defending Mel and Alec and suddenly he's an asshole too? So, totes okay to Christian/Catholic bash and totes okay to rape children (which seems laughable to me seeing as child rape in the Catholic Church seems to be admonished whole-heartedly by this same group of people) but don't mess with the Jews. Cuz, you know, it's not PC.

I think it's also worth pointing out that Alec Baldwin's career has not suffered because of his 'outbursts' the way Gibsons has. He's thought to be a fool, true, but he still rants all the way to the bank.

Why? Well, he didn't insult the wrong people in his tyrades.

> somehow, X-Men movies keep getting the green light and there is complete silence from the beautiful people

You personally surveyed every single Jew in existence on their opinions on these issues, and found complete unanimity? I'm impressed.

> he can say "Fuck the Pope"

You cannot see the difference between bashing one individual, and bashing an entire ethnic or religious group based only on their ethnicity or religion? I have some news for you. Jewish people are not all the same person. There are different "individuals". An individual is a person who is distinct from another person - i.e. has a different brain, a different past, a different personality, a different set of experiences, and occupies a different geographic space. Here is a link for more information:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individual

"The reality is, there are a lot of Jews in Hollywood"

Well, imagine that. It was a small group of Jews who built the movie industry out of almost nothing. They had the connections to entertainment venues to show their products because they and the people running them were closed out of all kinds of other kinds of endeavors....

Finance for instance. They were shut completely out until the 60s, like the Irish and any other non-WASPs. There's a reason why WASPs still predominate in the American financial sector - they built it from nothing centuries ago. Want to guess why there are so many WASPs at Harvard and Yale? Check to see how much room for advancement there was in the British government for "Dissenters" like the Puritans and Quakers who became WASPs.

Want to know what African Americans are so prominent in popular music? First ask how avidly all that talent was sought in the financial sector or in any other area of the corporate world.

There are historical reasons for these patterns of dominance and they usually go back to building something out of nothing because that was the best choice on offer.

You personally surveyed every single Jew in existence on their opinions on these issues, and found complete unanimity? I'm impressed.

I have some news for you. Jewish people are not all the same person.

First of all, Lobster, I was referring to HOLLYWOOD, (Which is predominently Jewish) not Jewish people as a whole.

Did you even READ what I wrote or are you cherry picking at certain things because I’m not jumping on the “NO ONE SHOULD EVER SAY ANYTHING BAD ABOUT ANY JEWISH PERSON EVER!” band-wagon. You might as well accuse me of generalizing and vilianizing Homosexuals too then since Singer is also openly gay.

Which brings me back to my point… You've seen exactly how many interviews or articles where anyone in Hollywood has condemned this man for his actions? I said ACTIONS, not his religion or sexual orientaton, got that? Neither of those things have ANY relevance to him being a pedophile rapist.

You cannot see the difference between bashing one individual, and bashing an entire ethnic or religious group based only on their ethnicity or religion?

Don’t be ignorant. The Pope is the representative for the Catholic Church and is a highly revered religious and political public figure. It’s the equivalent to him saying “Fuck, Harvey Weinstein!” only he’d be accused of anti-Semitism if he’d done that. Just like he’d be accused of racism if he’d said, “ Fuck, Barrack Obama!"

NO one condones Mel Gibson's ranting. But no one is supplying a good argument as to why they think Oldman is wrong about his pointing out the hypocricy of Hollywood.

>> "it's no secret the Republicans run the
>> Catholic Churches "

> Let's just let that float there in the
> punch bowl for awhile.

> Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at
> June 25, 2014 12:47 PM

☑ Republican command of Catholicism? That's a thing?

> I'm going to try really hard to say
> "social lubricant" within the next 2 days.

I actually like his "all-caps HONESTY" even more. First, to my knowledge, it's Gog's own coinage. Secondly, as with so many of the socially detached lefties who rant about racism in the Obama years, "all-caps HONESTY" ("A-C/H" hereafter) betrays an almost drooling eagerness to talk about their own discomforts, while the rest of us have moved on to better contexts for judgment (policy, decency, etc.).

If you made it into grade school, telling the truth shouldn't be so fraught.

When people are that, THAT eager to affirm the importance of being 'honest! [!],' it's safe to assume they've been feeling constrained for some time. And sometimes, they probably ought to feel that way. Maybe we want them to watch their language; maybe they deserve to be inhibited.

It's a lesser axiom of mine. I stole it from someone, but can't remember who, so I get credit: When someone says 'You've gotta be cruel to be kind,' you can be pretty certain they're looking forward to the cruel part.

Sabrina, you seem to be projecting your issues onto what Oldman said. The problem isn't that Gary Oldman defended Alec and Mel, it's that in doing so, he credited antisemitic tropes like "the Jews control the media" and made bizarre assumptions that Jews frequently oss around ethnic slurs towards Germans (FYI, we don't).

I think his subsequent apology and explanation was sufficient, and Oldman's basic point that prompted the rant--that we're way too judgmental about the crap actors say in private--is valid. But Oldman's comment has nothing to do with hypocrisy (which is also a valid complaint.

> Don’t be ignorant.

Hey! That was mean!

Eh...

> You cannot see the difference between bashing
> one individual, and bashing an entire ethnic
> or religious group based only on their
> ethnicity or religion?

"Bashing"?

C'mon… C'mon… DudeBroGalSister, C'mon.

1. "Hater."

2. "Bashing."

> it's intellectual honesty - there's
> a big difference.

Sincerely, honest-to-God curious:

What's the difference between "intellectual dishonesty" and plain, old-fashioned dishonest, the kind we pester children about?

And which is a bigger sin?



(My own feeling that regular honesty has proven itself flexible and pervasive enough to demand resistance in all contexts. Humanity hasn't come up with anything new in the last few thousand years.)

Whoops, regular DIShonesty...

Hey Amy, how's that new comment-editing module coming along?

Yeah, I like A-C/H too, but to be fair Crid, you can talk circles within circles and I have to get out the dictionary sometimes. If we were at a dinner party, I would totally get crib notes first.

Are you calling me intellectually dishonest?

Dood, don't be a hater! We need a forum of hope and sustainable rhet...

Ok, whatever.

"My professor unfairly gives me a bad grade, so now drunk me hates all professors"

Both of your examples are things you would say sober as well. People wouldn't think anything of it--because they would understand your context.

I have heard plenty of times women saying "I hate all men" after a dry spell. I've heard men say "I hate all women" after the same.

These are all figures of speech to illustrate a frustration.

(And I'm talking about how you feel, not about owning an object. )

When you are drunk and hope your girlfriend gets "raped by a pack of niggers" you're telling me alot about yourself.

Or you think the "Jews start all the wars for money"

I have no doubt these are your feelings you have when sober.

Perhaps not that you wish your girlfriend get raped, but that you think she is a whore and black people are niggers.

Alcohol is liquid courage.

One of my faves from Proverbs 15:28 A good man thinks before he speaks; the evil man pours out his evil words without a thought.

My thinking is that a good guy is good through and through When trash starts coming out the mouth like that, something's wrong on the inside.

Sabrina: just for the record, I think you make some excellent points. It's true, liberals and the most PC people get all sorts of passes for behavior that wouldn't be at all acceptable in a society that really respected morality. Jeffrey Wells of the blog Hollywood Elsewhere is a prime example. The man openly wishes and hopes that Christians and conservatives would get placed in concentration camps.

Gosh, some vitriolic exchanges and I've been nowhere near this discussion. I feel so left out.

Crid, you suck.

There. I feel better.

Even if it were true that everyone secretly blurts out vile racist crap when nobody else is around (though I think Gary's projecting), that doesn't mean it's something we should strive for. Everyone also farts when nobody else is around, it doesn't mean we should strive to fart all the time in front of everyone openly as if it's a laudable goal. Anyone who has any values at all should at least try to be a better human being. (And sorry, but there is no rational defence for anti-Semitism .. if you're an anti-Semite, your value system is broken in some way. Do Jews sometimes do evil things, sure, but so do non-Jews, and anyone with so much as three brain cells to rub together can figure out that there is a difference between individuals, and groups.)

> What's the difference between "intellectual dishonesty" and plain, old-fashioned dishonest, the kind we pester children about?

I don't think there's much difference, but an example might make it clearer what you mean? The main difference is that the intellectually dishonest frequently try convince themselves they're not being dishonest (e.g. rationalizing some internally contradictory or illogical point of view), while a child lying about stealing cookies from the cookie jar knows he is lying. Intellectual dishonesty is thus worse than outright lying in a sense: Outright liars at least indirectly give a 'hat tip' to the standard of truth because in order to deliberately lie, you must contemplate the truth, and knowingly concoct some falsehood as benchmarked against that standard of truth. But the chronically intellectually dishonest ultimately have no regard for truth or reason at all ... faux-intellectualisms and rationalizations may simply have self-serving goals, and when they defend some truth it's also only incidentally because it served some self-serving goal. It's a form of barbarism, and usually manifests in actual barbarism.

> When someone says 'You've gotta be cruel to be kind,' you can be pretty certain they're looking forward to the cruel part.

I had an ex-gf who used to say that a lot, and the data point empirically confirms your axiom.

> NO one condones Mel Gibson's ranting. But no one is supplying a good argument as to why they think Oldman is wrong about his pointing out the hypocricy of Hollywood.

Sabrina, Oldman wasn't pointing out the hypocrisy over issues like Polanksi, the hypocrisy he refers to is the claim that those who criticised Mel Gibson for being an anti-Semite are also all racists and bigots etc., a claim which is likely false.

> But the chronically intellectually dishonest ultimately have no regard for truth or reason at all ... faux-intellectualisms and rationalizations may simply have self-serving goals, and when they defend some truth it's also only incidentally because it served some self-serving goal. It's a form of barbarism, and usually manifests in actual barbarism.

@Crid: Sorry, venturing off-topic a bit, but a great example here is the type of arguments that spew forth from people who are pro-gun-control. They are pretty much uniformly chronically intellectually dishonest, and it manifests in barbarism such as gun control laws (gun control laws are a form of violence against peaceful people).

> Intellectual dishonesty is thus worse than
> outright lying in a sense

Needless complexity. In a sense, see yonder: May 18, 2010 9:16 AM.

"Faux-intellectualism" is deflated by the certainty that being honest is no more difficult, nor less necessary, for clever people than for the simple.

Also, thus.

Consistently resorting to ad hominem is another sign of intellectual dishonesty - I wish you would use logic and reason sometimes.

Crid, I've no interest in posturing and I'm immune to insults: Only truth and reason matter to me.

Thus!

I'm like that too, only I like sushi, as well.

"It's very important to them to convey their certitude. About Gibson. And now, about Olman.

But did either of them really hurt people?"

Mel likes beating women:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1293077/Mel-Gibson-caught-tape-admitting-hit-ex-girlfriend-Oksana-Grigorieva.html

If it's true, it's true, but it isn't what most people are holding against the guy.

A blog post months ago [Althouse?] said Stern got the woman to talk about her divorce terms on the air, thereby forfeiting the payout.

Hey, the article doesn't even say that... It says "Mel Gibson allegedly told the mother of his youngest child she 'deserved' to be hit, it was claimed today."

It was claimed, of a movie star already in trouble.

Play fair!

Also, the Althouse link.

(It will leave you with the sense that Miss Althouse is very concerned with personal physical attractiveness.)

I'm playing fair; there's public evidence. In addition to the tapes there are photos of the woman who claimed he beat her with injuries consistent with such a beating. That she derpily talked to Stern is irrelevant to what Mel did. It's evidence she lacks judgment, but a red herring with respect to whether he's prone to violence against women.

Look, do you think anyone's likely to convince you? You said "what Mel did," as if it were proven more than "alleged," which is the toughest word your link will use. He was a married guy for 25 years or something, right? If he were "prone [merely prone, not even guilty] to violence against women," there's one woman in particular I'd expect to offer an opinion about it, and IIRC, her opinion is getouttahere. And were she cowed by money or fear --unlikely for a presumably wealthy Hollywood ex-- I'd expect a few of their many (10? 15?) grown children to express an opinion about it. The were all born after Mommy Dearest and Bing Crosby book.

Sheesh.

Y'know, Hollywood stars are all about projection, through film projectors and otherwise. And that's what's happening here.

"I know what's happening in that man's heart... He's meaner than a rattlesnake!"

"Oh, it's worse than that... He actually hits women! He's prone, which means that it's like it's true, only it's actually much more certain! Prone! Also, Gary Oldman hates the mentally retarded!"

"Public evidence"?

> "Public evidence"?

I guess that's the kind of "evidence" considered good enough for trial-by-media? Until a formal court has found him guilty of something, any charges are only "alleged" charges. The Daily Mail is also not reputable. (To be clear, I'm agreeing with Crid on this point.)

> "But did either of them really hurt people?"

There is indeed no proof either of them hurt anyone, I agree with you on that.

But, I think spewing anti-Semitic tripe still like "The Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world" makes one a vile person even if it's not directly harmful to anyone. It's like if I consistently used racial slurs when black people weren't around, it might not directly hurt anyone, but it would still make me an asshole. Neither anti-Semitism nor racism are logically consistent with any coherent value system as they are based on multiple reasoning errors (this does not mean generalization is invalid - there are some crucial differences).

> To be clear, I'm agreeing with Crid
> on this point.

Stop it! It's confusing.

> There is indeed no proof either of
> them hurt anyone

All right, listen, you can't go on like this...

> But, I think spewing anti-Semitic tripe
> still like

First of all, "spewing" is a tellingly cliche word choice... The only thing more trite is "spewing vitriol."

Look at Weiner piece linked at the first comment: The guy worked with closely with Jews for a long and crazy-successful career, and he made 'them' (and everyone else on his projects) a lot of money... I really don't get the feeling that his life or career has been peppered by worrisome incidents. And in a night of heavy drinking during a moment of life stress —one which good Catholic boys who love their many children are NOT supposed to experience— he said some terribly rude things.

And since then, he's learned much more about Jewish life, and done much more to quietly support it, than you or I ever dreamt of doing in any case.

When Steven Jay Gould survived a first (brutal) bout with cancer, people asked him if the experience had rattled his atheism. His response (paraphrase) was 'Of course not... That's the whole point of composing your cosmology.'

Whether you're a believer or not, a "coherent value system" should be the tool to carry you through your weakest and stupidest moments. Maybe you think Christianity doesn't count, but Christian principle has probably attended more of modernity's flowering than has any other system of belief... Including, quite probably, your (and my) atheism.

Gibson's life was richly rewarded by people who projected other qualities onto him, heroic and thoughtful qualities, so I'm not terribly sympathetic for inappropriate judgments people may bring to him now... I felt the same way when they thought he was a heroic cop or a desert warrior or a Scottish clan leader or whatever. It's a dream, people.

And the warning continues: Movies and TV are automated entertainment. A film projector is a MACHINE, not a personality. You are being enchanted by mechanical processes.

Hollywood studios are mechanical processes. And scandalous headlines in the tattletale press are mechanical processes.

Don't let yourself take too much fulfillment from the industry that panders to you.

If you need that badly to believe that alcohol is truth serum, you have our condolences for the cause.

> Stop it! It's confusing.

I don't agree or disagree with people, I agree or disagree with particular facts or claims, based on whether they align with reality and are logically coherent ... who utters the claims is a non-issue except insofar as it may provide contextual clues to the interpretation of claims. In this case you're correct, charges against Mel Gibson of hurting people are only 'alleged' and the notion of "public evidence" is contradictory to the qualities of an objectively ethical legal system.

> First of all, "spewing" is a tellingly cliche word choice

Like the saying "if the shoe fits", if the word fits, I use it. In this case it fits quite well: It conveys the mindlessness that lies at the base of such utterances.

> a "coherent value system"

I think a 'coherent value system' is one that contains no internal logical contradictions, comports with reality, and includes objectives that can be rationally demonstrated to have value.

Totally thus! Utterances!

Welp brosephs, if you find it unpersuasive that a woman, whom a man said deserved a beating, ended up with a beating, that she said was from said man, a man whose career was built largely the portrayal of violence a solution to, life's problems, I'd simply say you're pretty effen credulous and hope this sentence isn't a comma splice lest you call everything else into question.

In other words, you have no reason to think so, certainly no reason that would constitute a legal standard of evidence, but that you want to... Because you don't like how his movies are so violent, even though moralisticly so, uniformly.

You're asking me to *not doubt* that he's personally violent.

People believe what they want about movie stars.

I mean, "credulous" is a misapplication for belief without evidence.

Let's all watch language really closely, OK?